Skip to main content

About your Search

20131202
20131210
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
with iran. on saturday president obama said fresh sanctions might make sense if long-term deal falls through but not before that. if at the end of six months we can't make a deal, we're no worse off. in fact, we have greater leverage with the international community to continue to apply sanctions and strengthen them. >> over in iran, president rouhani harolding the deal telling parliament the expectation of sanctions relief had already boosted his country's economy. the $7 billion in relief amounts to less than one month of iranian oil production and 7% of the $100 billion in frozen iranian assets that remain overseas. still any respite is welcome in an economy with 12% unemployment and 40% inflation. on sunday for the first time inspectors from the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog toured the heavy water reactor at iraq. a sign that while there's plenty of scepticism some progress was already under way. robert, the president towed a careful line here. i thought his remarks were interesting. it seems like we're in the middle of what our good friend david axelrod likes to call kabuki theater, confident
, or he's for abortion. and as far as iran, they're as liar as obama is. >> barbara from oklahoma this morning. downsizing of the military, sequestration cuts impact on. >> it was an economic message. talked about bending the cost curve, helping long term budget this country by bringing down the cost of medicare. then it became more of a about people in this very wealthy country deserve health insurance. be a right. the message is confusing for people. what is it about? about the economy? or about the morality of this country and the values of this country. problem with messages came to a head with do you want to keep your plan. you recall, he began that formulation by saying if you like your doctor, you'll be able your doctor. that quickly turned out not to obama dropped it pretty quickly and went to plan. are confusing -- it's a confusing law. and messaging is mixed cloudy and -- and not entirely undermine's really the president's ability to say trust us on this. subject.all on this dennis is waiting from hobbs, our line for independents. you're on with scott wilson of "the wash
to show just greatly concerned nations are in the region about iran's nuclear activities and why the obama administration in any final deal -- really needs to live up to the un security council officials. provide zero enrichment, zero processing, and unfettered immediate access for inspectors to the entire nuclear program. host: the defense secretary robert line -- guest: i think hagel is doing a lot of damage control, especially in gulf states. secretary kerry was in israel the last two days to have consultations. ready countries are worried about iran's ballistic antimissile efforts. iss is why the united states building up a ground-based midcourse defense of, a sickly a missile defense system to protect the united states against missile threats from both iran and north korea. allies, our friends, and partners in the middle east currently have these things and want them -- and one more them or do not have them and want them. is controversial that our allies and partners to feel more assured. it is an open question as to jim from california, good morning, you are on. caller: the zionist t
a continual threat from iran. president obama has weakened the trust and ability of the united states and has strengthened the legitimacy of the illegitimate iranian regime. it is a double whammy and lose stature by elevating a dangerous regime and all for what? our ability to prevent a nuclear-armed iran and all-out arms race in the middle east. it's not going to happen. we are going to see a nuclear-armed iran. we are going to see an all-out arms race in the middle east and we tarnish our relationship with our trusted allies. i remain committed, mr. speaker, that ensuring that iran never becomes a nuclear-capable country will happen. i urge my colleagues in the senate to take up the sanctions legislation that we in the house overwhelmingly passed earlier this year. mr. speaker, iran has no right whatsoever to enrichment. there can be no ambiguity here. the united states must not accept any new deal with iran that does not end iran's enrichment program completely and does not completely dismantle the nuclear infrastructure of this dangerous regime. i thank mr. roskham for his time and leader
tentative. president obama claims he wants to keep the core sanctions on iran's oil, energy, financial sector in place until there is a real comprehensive agreement. at issue is -- sanctions are like a brick wall, and hopefully we are just taking the top of breaks off. with a big break from the foundation, the wall of sanctions could crumble. host: next call, atlanta, georgia, sean, republican line. caller: do you believe that eventually iran will get a bomb? guest: thank you for your question. my worry is that -- it is pretty clear that iran has the capability to make a nuclear weapon, based on its declared capabilities. it could do it anywhere from six weeks to two months. now, what complicates things is that if it has undeclared capabilities, for example a hidden enrichment facility. bear in mind, in 2009, we found that iran had built a facility inside a mountain. i think the worry is that iran is building up a latent capability at a minimum, this latent capability that at some point in the future, they could choose to use. those in the think tank community are pushing to make sure
obama has, second term presidents turn abroad to get things done. there's an awful lot done on the agenda particularly with iran and the wider middle east. >> what about that call of the middle east, american involvement with iran, as minimal as it is and it's going to grow one way or another, what happens there? >> well i think this is the making or breaking of the obama presidency in terms of foreign policy. so, the next six months are going to be absolutely crucial. it's a temporary agreement and there's going to be a question of whether iran can be trusted and take tot the next stage. >> what about afghanistan? many of us in this country expect over the next 12 months or so, that would effectively end or a deal to keep some troops on. when america leaves what will that mean for the country? >> there needs deal. it's a bad thing president karzai is playing politics with this and not getting on and doing it. it is crucial. there's an election in afghanistan next year. the question will be is there enough credibility in that election to keep the security situation under con
sherman, is now the obama administration's lead egotiator for the iran nuclear talks. in a 2001 "new york times" op-ed, ms. sherman urged president bush to cut a deal, writing that kim jong il, quote, appears ready to make landmark commitments because to ensure the survival of his regime, he has to improve the country's disastrous economy by reducing the burden of a vast missile program and opening the doors to trade. well, ms. sherman was wrong about that inner op-ed she wrote in 2001. kim jong il needed to help his economy, right about that, but she thought it meant that he was ready to get rid of his ballistic missile program and open the doors more to trade. certainly they were willing to open the doors to trade but just as she had been wrong in 1994, when she helped the clinton administration work out an amazing deal with north recap the highlights , that deal with north korea they were believed to be pursues nuclear weapons so ms. sherman was the policy coordinator for north korea volved in this process, she, madeleine albright, president clinton thought what a great thing, we will
a hard time selling a plan that the iran nuclear freeze to a skeptical congress and to an increasingly skeptical congress. whites what worries the house more than others. host: the latest polling numbers on obama's trustworthiness. down to 46%. bill is waiting from massachusetts this morning on the line for republicans. good morning, you are on with scott wilson. i am a c-span junkie. i have two issues i want to talk about, legacy. legacy he talks about before and after he leaves office. to rule obamaing and hillary. they were trying to protect folks through consistent lies using various people as spokespeople and also the perception that they did not need, that they were so successful, we did not have to increase any security. . also,ond issue guest: bill pointed out correctly that this was a country in libya that the united states and benghazi in particular, that the united states put its military resources into to help and free from gaddafi. whereh its turnaround, the american ambassador and three others were killed, has to be seen as a problem. that is something that she will have
and if you thing it was political against obama or congressman like grayson. what were the difference forces at play that affected us not going in? and if you could talk about what happened this morning in iran as well. >> so, first of all, on the syria issue, the united states is already intervening in syria. the cia is supporting groups with weapons and strategic satellite imagery to enable them to engage with forces. the russians are involved. the iranians are involved. the united states is engaged already. but your question is interesting. i think what happened was president obama made this statement that for him a red line was the use of chemical weapons. and when it came out they used chemical weapons. obama is being asked by the press and al llies what are you going to do? and they were looking at a strike with maybe drones and tomahawks that would send a m s message and didn't intend for an exte extended air fair. and the obama was caught off guard on the opposition. and people on the left are fed wind up with the wars. the whitehouse miscalculated the opposition >> what is the comp
know this is not un-american deal, this is a kerry-obama deal. and that the rest of congress is not behind them. the u.s. senate want to impose sanctions. this will be hard for them to say we are going to trust iran and hope they do the right thing for the first time in 40 years. host: william is up first in ohio, democratic caller. theer: congressman, evidence that world trade center building 7 was wrought down with explosives is real and proven. how much more trust does congress have to lose before it faces reality and acknowledges the need for a new investigation into building 7's destruction? guest: i don't think you need investigation. the way that those towers were brought down was by radical islamic terrorists. her investigation has show that. host: did you read the 9/11 investigation? guest: i did not. host: you think it was adequate. lake placid, florida. caller: good morning. ira member in the past, -- i whenber in the past president clinton was dealing with china. they had a problem with missiles and their guidance systems. clinton. deals with it appeared that clin
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10